THE COST OF WAR

Dr. Steve McGehee

From the fortified heights opposite Fredericksburg, Robert E. Lee surveyed the wreckage of the Union army on the wide field below. Wave after wave of blue-clad troopers were torn apart by Rebel canister and grape. Deep sadness lining his face, he turned to an adjutant and remarked, It is well that war is so terrible lest we should become too fond of it. An honorable man. A very dear friend in Palouse has a son in the Air Force who has already served a tour in Kuwait. If we make war on Iraq he will most certainly go. She has another son who is draft age. She is doing everything in her power to send a messag to Washington that Iraqi oil is not worth her sons blood. For her sake and that of her children, both fine young men, I can only hope that the war is a short one. As an American I must hope the same.

As a world citizen, I have my doubts. In the first Iraq war, Americans killed in action numbered 148. Our own military puts Iraqi military deaths at 100,00 with another 35,00 civilians perishing in the bombings. Human rights groups place both numbers much higher. Asked by a reporter if he knew how many Iraqis had died as a result of Desert Storm, Colin Powell answered: That is not really a matter I am terribly interested in. We've come a long way from Robert E. Lee.

We seem to have entered an age where modern wars waged against underdeveloped countries like Iraq and Afghanistan can be won at a very small price in American lives. Id like to believe there's no downside. Unfortunately, the downside is that the apparent painlessness of war encourages the sort of adventurism and imperial aspirations which led Defense Secretary to boast that we were so powerful that a two-front war--one in Iraq and one in North Korea--was well within out capacity to wage.

Of late, we have become so accustomed to overwhelming Third World enemies with technology that the Administrations hubris knows no bounds. Bush has become so full of himself that he will wage war even against the spirited opposition of most of the worlds most powerful nations. The last time a six-gun Texan in the White House played Alamo with an underdeveloped country, over fifty thousand young American men died. That the cost to the communists was one million soldiers and another million civilians dead hardly speaks to the issue. Suppose it were possible to destroy a countrys infrastructure and slaughter two million troops and civilians at virtually no cost in American lives, would that be better still?

Considering Rumsfelds bellicose threat to Hussein that his use of chemical weapons would bring nuclear retaliation, I wonder if Bushs brain trust doesn't think just that way. I remember Goldwater in 1964 suggesting the use of low-yield tactical nuclear weapons in Viet Nam. The American public was horrified and his Presidential campaign was beyond saving. For those who think that the stakes today are higher and somehow justify atomic brinkmanship, remember that a war then between superpowers could mean the end of the human race itself.

The sort of careless saber rattling can only come from a President whose wealth and connections kept him from having to see combat close up in VietNam. For each Third World country we now overwhelm at relatively small cost to ourselves, the appetite for conquest becomes greater. And still, I can only hope that if , to secure Iraqi oil reserves, we are led into war by a draft-avoiding President , it will be over quickly and that Linda's boys will be safe. The Iraqi losses will again be staggering.And the miliary industrial complex will toast the victory and know that more await our imperial destiny.